Share this

Rus Schultz (guest)
MN:

Why isn't an easy solution to the tax cuts simply to make the current tax rates permanent, and in addition, add a new tax tier for $1 Million+ marners, and then put that new top bracket at the old tax rates they would have been under Clinton.

Seems so simple, then we may actually have a long-term fix to something, and do something in Washington though, silly me for thinking things actually get accomplished in our nation's capital.

Joseph Eagar (guest)
CA:

I did not get through read the whole debate, but I am astonished at what is being left out: The tax hikes for high earners are too small to pay for tax cuts on the lower brackets.

A serious proposal would be doubling or tripling the top-income tax hike. I'm aware this is very divisive; my own personal view is all of us pay too little taxes, not simply the rich. We have far too much expenditure in our tax code. We cannot hide the pain of economic adjustment. Future tax rates will likely have to go up for everyone; trade must be normalized with surplus countries; and our political and business culture need to accept that balance of trade deficits -- the mechanical consequence of federal borrowing -- really matter. All of this will be extremely painful. The labor movement's failure to allow sustainable change in their movement is also a problem. Without a functional and culturally-acceptable union model -- that mainstream Americans can accept -- we risk further economic dislocation, distress, and widening the gap between big and small business.

Thomas Lynch (guest)
TN:

Democrats pushing class warfare? Does a bear ... ? Is the sky blue? America doesn't agree with the Democrats on much of anything. The only way Democrats can ever gain any power is by pushing race and class warfare with the help of their trusty allies in the media.

Lie, cheat, and smear is all they know how to do.

Doug Shelledy (guest)
TX:

The top 10 percent of income earners already pay almost 60 percent of the taxes collected. I would like to know what the professors and liberal "thinkers" feel is "their (the rich) fair share"? Incomes are inequal but so is the tax burden. To focus on one without the other is just an ivory tower exercise in futility.

Chris Sells (guest)
AL:

Interesting when the discussion of tax either up or down is constantly a hot topic. Should the rich pay a higher tax? Ok, let us balance a little.

Should the government spend less? Personally, everyone should pay a higher tax percentage and government need to cut spending. That is the reality if you truly want fiscal responsibility. Let's say 10% increase in taxes across the board and 15% decrease in all sectors of government spending.

Michael Teniente (guest)
CA:

"Should the rich pay more, as President Obama says?" This philosophy is flawed. This philosophy is based on the idea that the rich are "stupid."

The rich are rich for a reason. Usually educated, hard working, innovated to the point where they need help (jobs) to pursue their dreams. Taxing the rich is like saying to them they are uneducated, not hard working and don't have what it takes to get around those taxes. You think these highly educated people are too dimwitted to say to themselves: Well, I have to save my money now. I'm not going to work this hard just to give it away. First, to survive, I'll put a freeze on hiring and to protect my investments I'll pass the tax on to the consumer with higher prices for basic living. If we commons have to pay more for basic living then there's no money to spend on other things. What does that mean? No economic growth. Yeah, go ahead and tax the rich and drive the economy further and further into chaos. Come 2012 the people will run this administration out as laughing stocks. They're already going to get run out of Washington, but if they tax the rich it will be as laughingstocks. Like Jimmy Carter.

Karen Fink (guest)
CA:

History is littered with aristocracies. Cultures that limit social mobility and concentrate wealth in the hands of a few powerful families lead to corruption and are the essence of a decayed society.

American democratic ideals, by contrast, have been served by a progressive income tax, a fair inheritance tax, universal education and free access to the courts. We can either use our progressive income tax to promote our ideals or we can watch as our country becomes increasingly ignorant, arrogant and non-functional.

Warren Danzig (guest)
FL:

I have no problem with the rich paying higher taxes. My problem is with the 48 percent of Americans who pay no federal income taxes. We revolted from England because of taxation without representation. Now we have 48 percent of Americans who get representation without taxation. Everybody should have skin in the game.

Laura Halvorsen (guest)
FL:

Martin Frost says: "People in that income level and above clearly can pay some additional taxes so that the middle class can continue to have lower taxes and so that we can make a dent in the deficit." Excuse me?

My employer earns that. He is a small business owner. Business is down. Way down. And banks aren't lending. Our health insurance - which he pays for 100 percent and which he is not obligated to provide, even under Obamacare - is going up $9,000 this year. He has two children in college, which he is paying for out of pocket and an elderly mother whose considerable and expensive prescription drugs he pays for. Between the small business tax increases already coming down the pike and now the increase on his personal income that Obama is suggesting - he will end up either 1) not providing us with health care anymore; 2) asking us to pay for health care (a defacto pay cut) or 3) laying people off. Like many people, I have not had a raise in over a year. And yet now I must worry about losing my health insurance or my job because people like Mr. Frost thinks my boss can "clearly" pay some additional taxes. Clearly, he can not. He may be forced to pay the tax, but I'll be forced to pay the price. Nice, Mr. Frost. Real nice.

Steven Best (guest)
OH:

Dr. Skocpol -- What makes $250K the magic number? Do you have some research from your ivory tower that makes this the cutoff? It's one thing to state reality, another to shill.

John Lewis (guest)
IL:

Statistics from Robert Reich`s book entitled, `Aftershock': Mr. Reich cites the work of analysts who have tracked the increasing share of national income that has gone to the top 1 percent of earners since the 1970s, when their share was 8 percent to 9 percent.

In the 1980s, it rose to 10 percent to 14 percent. In the late ’90s, it was 15 percent to 19 percent. In 2005, it passed 21 percent. By 2007, the last year for which complete data are available, the richest 1 percent were taking more than 23 percent of all income. The richest one-tenth of 1 percent, representing just 13,000 households, took in more than 11 percent of total income in 2007. That does not leave enough spending power with the rest of the population to sustain a flourishing economy. This is a point emphasized in “Aftershock.” Mr. Reich, a former labor secretary in the Clinton administration, writes: “The wages of the typical American hardly increased in the three decades leading up to the Crash of 2008, considering inflation. In the 2000s, they actually dropped.” I guess if you want to live in a third world economy with a small handful of rich folks and a large population of working poor then you`ll be pleased with our current situation.

Jim Wojtasiewicz (guest)
VA:

How funny to hear Republican outrage at the very idea of making immigration controversial! Who is trying to terrify the public about this issue at a time when illegal border crossings and violent crime in border areas are way down and deportations are up?

What really confounds Republicans is exactly what the DREAM act puts its finger on -- what to do about all the illegal immigrants who are already here. The question struck Sarah Palin speechless in her July interview with Bill O'Reilly. Sure, there are some people who dream lovingly about illegal immigrants being rounded up like cattle and driven out of the country. Let's hear some responsible Republicans say once and for all that they oppose that. Let's hear Republicans talk about illegal immigrants as human beings, created equal as it says in the Bible and in our Declaration of Independence.

Art Harman (guest)
VA:

I suspect Harry Reid will see his attempt to pander to Hispanic voters backfire as his fellow senators will avoid the bill like the plague.

The news item yesterday was President Obama promising that amnesty was still on his list, so Reid probably had his arm twisted by the White House to set this trap which will only ensnare members if his own party. And what of a lame-duck session to pass amnesty and other vastly unpopular issues? Why would defeated members want to lift a finger for the president who cost them their seat? Or for that matter endanger their chances for running in a future election by pushing a radical agenda 180 degrees away from their voters? Ditto for those who were reelected or senators not facing an election -- why should they risk further alienating their constituents? The dream of packing in a Hugo Chavez-style orgy of passing everything under the socialist sun dims daily with each new poll.

John Sugden (guest)
MD:

Aquil Harris is being disingenous when he/she says that convincing future illegal immigrants that they will be caught and deported is mandatory but also suggests that amnesty ("a pathway to citizenship") is part of the solution.

First off, a "pathway" already exists - it's called USCIS, it's called 1 million legal immigrants coming into the country every year. More importantly, amnesty will forever destroy our credibility on enforcement. We have evidence of this: Regean did amnesty in 1986 when there were 2 million. Now, there are 10 to 15 million. Amnesty does not work. Never has, never will.

Edward Appiah (guest)
MD:

I'm not opposed to the Dream Act per se but there needs to be some modification. For example recipients of the Dream Act will not be allowed to file for any relatives once they get citizenship. Currently there is nothing to prevent a Dream Act recipient sponsoring their parents who broke the law.

John Sugden (guest)
MD:

The "DREAM" act will only exacerbate what has become an illegal immigration nightmare. The greatest incentive for people to do anything in life is their kids.

By rewarding law breaking, this will only make the problem worse. Worse of all, it will destroy our credibility on enforcement, creating a vicious cycle. Reagan gave amnesty to 2 million illegal immigrants in 1986. Twenty years later, the number? 10-20 million. What will it be 20 years from now? Normally, this kind of law would be common sense, but the numbers involved in illegal immigration are beyond our comprehension. Moving Mexico and Central America to the U.S. is not an answer for anybody's problems. There are cost free ways to reduce illegal immigration greatly, and defeating this bill is one of them.

Luke Maffei (guest)
CA:

I would love to see the DREAM Act passed in any fashion, and would respect more the party leaders that made it happen. Where was this courage in 2009 when we were asking for a public option? Where is this courage on ENDA now?

Don Pedigo (guest)
AZ:

We all want a better life for our children, does this give us the right to
go against the law for the betterment of our children? Or is the right to
thwart the law reserved only for illegal alien parents and their children from Mexico and elsewhere?

Michael Shu (guest)
PA:

Would one of the talking bobble heads in here explain to me how you intend to pacify all of the legal immigrants that have spent a lot of money, time, and hoop jumping to come here?

How are you going to explain to all of the students looking for a job to sponsor them and if they don't, they have to leave? What do you tell them? You didn't sneak into the country? You should have flown to Mexico first? Should have taken track in school? C'mon and please send an email. I would love to hear you explain it to me.

Rus Schultz (guest)
MN:

How does the DREAM act help us get a handle on illegal immigration? Doesn't it just encourage it more? Come here illegally, we'll give your children citizenship after 5 years.

Eric Morris (guest)
WA:

Pushing immigration reform at this time appears to be a purely political move. Dems know they can't get any substantial legislation passed now. Dems are hoping the GOP will oppose it thereby whipping up some Dem voter enthusiasm, which is sorely lacking.

Tim Gorman (guest)
KS:

Does the Hispanic community not realize just how much of a pander the Dream Act is? You must have been present in the country for 5 consecutive years prior to enactment of the Dream Act.

That means that NO ONE younger than 5 at the time of enactment can ever qualify under the Act.. You have to have entered the US before you turned 16. That means that most of the population targeted by the Act will be 20 years old or younger at the time of enactment of the Dream Act. So the targeted audience at the time of enactment will primarily be those undocumented youth between the ages of 5 and 20. No one younger than 5 will ever be eligible. This is a very small, targeted audience. It is IN NO WAY a comprehensive answer to anything concerned with immigration. It is a pander by Harry Reid aimed at the Hispanic community for nothing more than garnering a few votes in the current election. This is politics at its worst. Is it any wonder that the electorate is turning away from incumbents in ever growing numbers?

Michael Buehler (guest)
NJ:

Not a snowball's chance in a volcano of passing. Do you think Bennet is going to put his neck on the line in Colorado? How about Feingold in Wisconsin? Murray in Washington?

Not to mention people like Bill Nelson. How about people like Collins and Snowe who as of right now would be primaried right out of office by an angry base. If O'Donnell, Christie and Brown have taught us anything it is that even if states are deep blue and 60 percent Democratic, there's still 40 percent that are not, and of those a heck of a lot are as deep red as anyone in Alaska. No one is going to risk their career on such an unpopular act. Discounting the college section of the DREAM act, the military portion seems a lot like Roman Legion recruitment for Aluxia units. Of course 1,600 years after the fall of Rome we are still debating if that was a good idea or not.

Aquil Harris (guest)
MD:

What to do about 12 million illegal aliens that have successfully evaded immigration laws and settled into the economic, social, and political fabric of American life?

A path to U.S. citizenship should be established along with an amnesty period to comply. A guest worker program should be developed. The penalty for those illegal immigrants who do not comply with the citizenship program and employers who hire them should be strict and severe; immediate deportation for illegals and substantial fines and jail time for employers. Even with a citizenship program, there will be illegal immigrants who will still evade the law; but they should be constantly reminded that sooner or later they will get caught, and they and the families they established in the U.S. will suffer from the choice they made. Yes, I am a liberal Democrat.

Laura Halvorsen (guest)
FL:

Dean Baker says: "It is very important for millions of immigrants and their families to normalize their status. For these people, it is a real emergency.

Every day, they face the risk that they could be stopped for running a yellow light or going 10 miles over the speed limit and then end up being deported as a result." The fear of deportation could have been avoided by entering the country legally. If their status is causing them an emergency, it is most certainly one of their own willful doing. I lived in the UK for a few years. I didn't sneak in. I filled out the requisite documentation, mailed it to the British embassy and awaited my visa before stepping foot on their sovereign soil. It wasn't hard. If the process for immigrating legally to the U.S. is too confusing, expensive, or cumbersome, then that is something Congress should address. I fully support making the legal immigration process more efficient and user-friendly. I do not support, however, rewarding people for breaking the law. If I robbed a bank and was on the lam, constantly looking over my shoulder, would you be arguing that the government should drop its arrest warrant and let me keep the money because I'm desperate and afraid of going to jail?

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.